Room Count VS Square Footage (VS etc?)

[Charles Clark]

(This question does not seem to fit into any particular category but since I am asking as part of a house hack strategy I am putting it here.)

I'm trying to narrow down my search for a first time home/house hack that will eventually be a stand alone rental. For the house hacking portion I am operating under the assumption that more bedrooms and bathrooms offers greater rental income opportunity. Ie. a 4 bed 3 bath is better than a 3 bed 2.5 bath.

However, because I anticipate renting this property in its entirety eventually I also want to be mindful of what would make it competitive as a single family rental. Is room count more important than square footage or vice versa? To be more exact, consider the following.

A 3 bed/2 bath house, 1900 square feet versus 1600 square feet. Does that difference result in a rent difference? If so how much? Alternatively, will it be significantly harder to rent something which is "small" square footage wise for x number of bedrooms.

A 4 bed/2.5 bath house with 1700 square feet versus a 3 bed/2 bath house with 1900 square feet. Are these comparable? Is the extra bedroom preferred even though it is lower square footage overall? Or does the absolute larger square footage win out?

Or is there some 3rd factor of overwhelming importance that matters more (besides the pathological cases, ie. if one is a shack next to a railroad depot and the other is in McMansion estates, etc).

Would love some thoughts on this since my own preferences for such things are often not aligned with what popular with the masses.